pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes  (Read 19219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« on: September 25, 2017, 16:44 »
+3
From Gettyimages / iStockphoto:

Quote
Effective October 1, 2017 a new French law obliges clients who use commercial images in France to disclose whether the body shape of a model has been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

As a result, also effective October 1st, we have amended our Creative Stills Submission Requirements to require that you do not submit to us any creative content depicting models whose body shapes have been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

Please note that other changes made to models like a change of hair color, nose shape, retouching of skin or blemishes, etc., are outside the scope of this new law, and are therefore still acceptable.

Effective 1st October 2017, any content submitted where this type of retouching has been carried out will be a breach of our Submission Requirements and your Agreement with us.

Nanny state strikes again!  :-*
« Last Edit: September 26, 2017, 04:40 by Brasilnut »


« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2017, 17:01 »
+20
The title on your post is not descriptive and has a really nasty tone to it. Do you really want to mix complaining about excessive rules with your views on how they came about?

You can always photograph women who do not need Photoshop to look rail-thin, so you can easily find your way around the rules you don't like if you want to make the effort.

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2017, 17:14 »
+8
The title on your post is not descriptive and has a really nasty tone to it.

That's exactly what I thought, really nasty and unnecessary. Where are the downvotes when you need them?

One could see it as a victory for 'all shapes are beautiful', as it is for all images which have been changed to make bodies smaller or larger, so making a slender woman curvier is likewise forbidden. (Or changing men's shapes likewise) Good for France!

It could also be seen as a victory for 'real is best'. Why shouldn't someone's natural shape be acceptable? Why should people be subjected to images of 'desirable' which isn't even real? Heck, back in the day I was astonished and delighted to be let into the secret of airbrushing (because I kept wondering why no-one I ever saw had 'model proportions')!

Keep your sizeist prejudices to yourself, if you must have them at all (better still, grow up). There has been a lot of publicity around overthin models, how the models are pressurised to be almost skeletons, and the effect that seeing that has on other women and girls. It's a serious health issue.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=models+pressurised+to+be+thinner&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=roDJWcWmN8Tv8Af9l7KADw

(BTW, I didn't like the way they had changed the model's skin in the email highlighting the issue, it implied that her natural skintone was undesirable.)

Wonder how they're going to deal with images submitted before Oct 1st - make them all unobtainable in France?
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 17:26 by ShadySue »

« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2017, 17:26 »
+4
From Gettyimages / iStockphoto:

Quote
Effective October 1, 2017 a new French law obliges clients who use commercial images in France to disclose whether the body shape of a model has been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

As a result, also effective October 1st, we have amended our Creative Stills Submission Requirements to require that you do not submit to us any creative content depicting models whose body shapes have been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

Please note that other changes made to models like a change of hair color, nose shape, retouching of skin or blemishes, etc., are outside the scope of this new law, and are therefore still acceptable.

Effective 1st October 2017, any content submitted where this type of retouching has been carried out will be a breach of our Submission Requirements and your Agreement with us.

Nanny state strikes again!  :-*

What is safer and better for models: Photoshop retouching or real surgery "retouching"?

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2017, 17:28 »
+4

What is safer and better for models: Photoshop retouching or real surgery "retouching"?

That's a lesser of two evils argument.
Better for everyone that we accept that many body shapes exist, get over it; and designers should be able to design for everyone.

It's not only in France, there have been quite a number of issues in UK advertising recently where there has been a backlash on overphotoshopped models, not because they look overphotoshopped, but because the models are well known in other spheres and people know what they look like, and don't want to see their appearance changed. Several advertising campaigns have been pulled due to public pressure (even as far back as 2009 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/16/twiggys-olay-ad-banned-airbrushing [heck, I can't believe that was eight years ago!]). It relates to truth in advertising.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 17:32 by ShadySue »

« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2017, 18:18 »
+7
I think in this case the "Nanny State" is taking action because of health risks to young girls who internalize those unrealistic body images, contributing to anorexia, anxiety and depression, which can have very bad consequences.   One could argue that this is an overreaction, but it's not without purpose.  I'd compare it to warnings on tobacco products.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 19:03 by stockastic »

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2017, 18:48 »
+6
I'd like the OP to share a photo of his amazing, bodacious bod.

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2017, 19:12 »
+5
I'd like the OP to share a photo of his amazing, bodacious bod.
Maybe he'll soon link to his blog post detailling how to lose 2 stones in 24 hours.

« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2017, 19:53 »
+4
Brasilnut: Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microbrain.

« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2017, 19:54 »
+23
This news from Getty is the most stupid thing that I saw on stocks!
First. French laws don't prohibit to retouch images. They tell that it should be mentioned that image was retouched. So why don't Getty just add small check box: this image was retouched, model shape was changed. No. They forbid any images with model changed shape.
Second. This law is only acting in France. So why all people in the world should follow that stupid law? Ok Getty let your customers from France see special warning: fashion and beauty images that you see was retouched.
Finally. In general I don't agree with this law. May be we should write on all movies that FX was created on computer, and that blood is not real, and heroes can't fight so good? No, every human have his own head to think and understand what is good, and what is not. Government should not write on every stone and every tree "this is danger, don't touch, don't go..... don't worry that you are not like slim retouched super model".

Why just don't prohibit beautiful woman at all? On stocks, on everywhere. No make-up, no medical body changes, no jewelry. Just a real people in simple clothing. How this bureaucrats can't understand that Photoshop retouching is just another level of a very long story, story of intention to beauty and perfection.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 20:07 by chaoss »

« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2017, 20:03 »
+2
It's a big question, actually.  Society is certainly damaged by the violence and brutality in movies and TV.   We aren't quite ready to face up to that and do anything about it, yet, but movies do at least have to carry ratings in the U.S, although they mean next to nothing.

I live near one of the nation's biggest retail complexes, the Mall of America, and I'm in there frequently, and I see all the ads on the clothing stores.  There's an accelerating trend towards "honest" model shots and inclusion of big people.  It's really becoming a thing.

 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 20:14 by stockastic »

« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2017, 20:14 »
+2
There's an accelerating trend towards "honest" model shots and inclusion of big people.  It's really becoming a thing.
If this trend is coming from people, coming from business owner and his management team I totally agree. Every market can select what type of models do they need. But I'm totally disagree that government should take any lows about this.
May be government should forbid adv at all? Cause on every adv we see "do this, do that, this will bring you success, with this you will be better, lowers price, last chance" and so on. In real world most of this things in adv are not so good, not so perfect, and price is not lowest, and we are not getting better. In real world of totally truth most part of adv should be forbidden. So why are they only looking on perfect slim models... bad low, and even more bad decision from Getty.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 20:21 by chaoss »

Shelma1

« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2017, 20:35 »
+5
Men.  ::)

« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2017, 21:21 »
+5

What is safer and better for models: Photoshop retouching or real surgery "retouching"?

That's a lesser of two evils argument.
Better for everyone that we accept that many body shapes exist, get over it; and designers should be able to design for everyone.

Yes, indeed. I'm not saying otherwise, I'm all for it!

My question is only concerning those aspiring models fiercely competing for the front page.

This law will work against most models!

If consumers want un-retouched models, advertisers will certainly listen to what the public wants. They will always know better than any government.

A lot of models who might need a little retouching, here and there, according to public preferences, might find themselves out of job!
This is why, I'm pretty certain that many will go straight for the knife, instead of the clone tool in PS.

There is no need for the nanny state to intervene in such cases.
It has been proven, over and over again, that good and noble intentions often backfire, with unintended consequences!
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 21:30 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2017, 00:39 »
+8
Men.  ::)

Yes men make up 50% of the population  ;D

As for fatties, well if the lard buckets have no self control and want the rest of society view their wobble ass, muffin top physique as "beautiful" then I say go for it indulge yourselves, it still doesn't change the fact they are fat.
 

As for body shaming, why not, they should be ashamed for letting themselves go and becoming porkers while a good portion of the human race are under nourished.



 ;D

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2017, 02:40 »
+7
Quote
I'd like the OP to share a photo of his amazing, bodacious bod.


« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2017, 02:53 »
+6
Its not about "fat" its about borderline anorexic  being portrayed as a desirable body shape...the industry only has itself to blame for this "over correction"


« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2017, 03:45 »
+4
Not that I've ever done anything similar, but I can still photoshop horns on people's heads right?

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk


« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2017, 04:08 »
+3
Not that I've ever done anything similar, but I can still photoshop horns on people's heads right?

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
Putting one on a horse and claiming its a unicorn might be considered questionable

« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2017, 04:22 »
+3
Not that I've ever done anything similar, but I can still photoshop horns on people's heads right?

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
Putting one on a horse and claiming its a unicorn might be considered questionable

Well, only if submitted as editorial.  :)

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2017, 04:37 »
+5
Fat people are fat, yes, but calling them a 'fatty' moves it from what could be considered a statement of fact, to a derogatory term. Like calling somebody a black person or a... something else. 

Semmick Photo

« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2017, 04:37 »
0
Maybe Leaf can edit the title of the article

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2017, 04:50 »
+3
Quote
Fat people are fat, yes, but calling them a 'fatty' moves it from what could be considered a statement of fact, to a derogatory term. Like calling somebody a black person or a... something else.

I agree and edited it accordingly.

I'll draft a serious reply to this subject soon.

« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2017, 06:20 »
0
What was the original title? I missed it.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2017, 06:22 »
+2
Quote
What was the original title? I missed it.

Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3801 Views
Last post April 20, 2007, 15:32
by a.k.a.-tom
5 Replies
3824 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 04:23
by FD
52 Replies
9265 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 18:40
by OM
2 Replies
1210 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 22:22
by disorderly
989 Replies
80147 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors